Considering all the issues that should draw the attention of American politicians, it's astounding how much air is being wasted on debating -- once again -- the federal assault-weapons ban.

But then, issues that evoke emotional rather than intellectual responses always bubble to the top when election time rolls around. And don't kid yourselves; we're deep into Campaign 2004.

Apparently the incumbents and the editorial writers who championed the ban in 1994 didn't learn much about the topic during the intervening years.

Fact: The 1994 "assault-weapons" ban was about symbolism and cosmetics, not crime.

The guns covered by the Clinton-era ban, which sunsets in September 2004 if Congress doesn't vote to extend it, are semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Some of them are made to resemble military-style small arms but are mechanically indistinguishable from traditional sporting rifles.

As much as gun-control advocates will proclaim the awful lethality of these firearms, the reality is that they work just like many of the guns that are considered acceptable.

Even the feds acknowledge that. A 1996 National Institute of Justice report on the impact of the ban said that "the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country."

According to a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times, the "quiet majority who worry about their families' safety" support extending the ban. The implication was that those of us who believe in a citizen's right to gun ownership don't worry about our families' safety.

Hmmm. One of the reasons Mr. and Mrs. America own firearms is personal safety -- and they "don't" worry. Guess they're right.

The old need-vs.-want argument always surfaces in this debate, as some argue that there is no reason that anyone needs an M-16 or an AK-47. And first-graders don't need ice cream and soccer moms don't need Ford Excursions.

Want is a whole other issue.

And what the gun banners want is to make a legal product illegal so the question of what gun-rights folks want becomes moot.

"These guns are not for duck hunting; they are weapons of outlaw terror" -- the Los Angeles Times again.

Talk about your hyperbole. But then, the writer probably doesn't understand that, regardless of how one parses the phrase about "a well-regulated militia," the Second Amendment is about the fundamental right of self-defense and not duck hunting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jill "J.R." Labbe is a senior editorial writer and columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.